The Ben Shapiro Show - Quid Pro Quo? | Ep. 880

00:00:00.000 Mick Mulvaney spends the day on the hot seat.

00:00:02.000 President Trump sends the G7 to his own resort.

00:00:05.000 And our journalism-ing betters set their sights on Facebook.

00:00:07.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:08.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:10.000 Wow, endless numbers of things to get to today.

00:00:17.000 We're gonna jump in in just one second.

00:00:19.000 First, The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.

00:00:22.000 Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com.

00:00:26.000 We love our friends over at ExpressVPN.

00:00:28.000 Okay, so, the big news of the day all surrounds Mick Mulvaney.

00:00:32.000 Before we get into it, first, we have to note the passing of Elijah Cummings, longtime congressperson from Washington, D.C.

00:00:39.000 slash Baltimore, obviously.

00:00:42.000 According to the Associated Press, Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings, a sharecropper's son who rose to become a civil rights champion and the chairman of one of the U.S.

00:00:49.000 House committees leading an impeachment inquiry of President Trump, died Thursday of complications from long-standing health problems.

00:00:56.000 He was 68 years old.

00:00:58.000 He was a formidable orator who advocated for the poor in his black majority district according to the Associated Press.

00:01:03.000 You don't have to like Elijah Cummings' politics to understand that he was good at the game and not only that, that he was actually, according to virtually every Republican who worked with him, somebody who operated With a high level of honor inside his own chamber.

00:01:17.000 There's a lot of bipartisan respect for Elijah Cummings.

00:01:20.000 So all the best to his wife and family.

00:01:22.000 Obviously, condolences to everybody who knew Elijah Cummings.

00:01:25.000 Trey Gowdy made a really nice statement on Twitter about Elijah Cummings.

00:01:28.000 He said, was one of the most powerful, beautiful, and compelling voices in American politics.

00:01:33.000 The power and the beauty came from his authenticity, his conviction, the sincerity with which he held his beliefs.

00:01:37.000 We rarely agreed on political matters.

00:01:39.000 We never had a crossword outside of a committee room.

00:01:41.000 He had a unique ability to separate the personal from the work.

00:01:44.000 The story of Elijah's life would benefit everyone regardless of political ideation, the obstacles, barriers, and roadblocks he overcame, and the external and sometimes internal doubt that whispered in the ear of a young Elijah Cummings.

00:01:53.000 He beat it all.

00:01:54.000 He beat the odds.

00:01:55.000 He beat the low expectations of that former school employee who told Elijah to abandon the dream of being a lawyer, that he would never become a lawyer, to settle for a job with his hands and not his mind.

00:02:04.000 Elijah loved telling that story because that school employee wound up being Elijah's first client as a lawyer.

00:02:08.000 We live in an age where we see people on TV a couple of times and we think we know them and what they are about.

00:02:12.000 It is true Elijah was a proud progressive with a booming melodious voice who found himself in the middle of the most major political stories over the past decade.

00:02:19.000 It is inescapable that be part of his legacy, but his legacy also includes the path he took to become one of the most powerful political figures of his time.

00:02:25.000 It is a path filled with pain, prejudice, obstacles, and doubt that he refused to let stop him.

00:02:29.000 His legacy is perseverance.

00:02:30.000 His legacy is fighting through the pain.

00:02:32.000 His legacy is making sure there were fewer obstacles for the next Elijah Cummings.

00:02:35.000 His legacy to me above all else was his faith.

00:02:38.000 A faith in God that is being rewarded today with no more fights, no more battles, And no more pain.

00:02:43.000 So, good for a nice statement by Trey Gowdy.

00:02:46.000 And regardless of your political affiliation, when people in public service pass away and they are well respected across the political aisle, it's worthy of taking a moment.

00:02:57.000 Okay, so the big news of the day.

00:03:00.000 obviously surrounds the statement of President Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who also is the head of the Office of Management and Budget, has an enormous amount of power and influence inside the Trump administration, and is seen by many as the guy who's kind of Trump's hatchet man on the inside.

00:03:15.000 We'll get to what Mick Mulvaney said in just one second.

00:03:18.000 First of all, we have to say How many different types of cars are there on the road?

00:03:22.000 Like, you're listening to this, it's quite possible you're listening to this in your car.

00:03:25.000 Look out the window and you will see there are a bevy of different types of cars on the road.

00:03:29.000 Do you really think that the local auto parts store has the parts that you specifically need for your car?

00:03:34.000 The chances are pretty low.

00:03:35.000 And that is why God made the interwebs.

00:03:37.000 The interwebs are there so that you can actually have the precise part that you require at a price that you can afford.

00:03:43.000 This is where RockAuto.com comes in.

00:03:45.000 RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.

00:03:50.000 Go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.

00:03:54.000 They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.

00:03:59.000 Whether it's for your classic or your daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.

00:04:04.000 The RockAuto.com catalog is super easy to navigate.

00:04:06.000 Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and filter by brands, specifications, and prices as well.

00:04:11.000 And best of all, the prices at RockAuto.com, they're always reliably low, and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.

00:04:17.000 They've got great selection, low prices, and the parts that your car needs.

00:04:20.000 RockAuto.com.

00:04:22.000 Go to RockAuto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck, and write Shapiro in their How Did You Hear About Us box.

00:04:27.000 They know we sent you.

00:04:28.000 That helps us.

00:04:28.000 It also helps them.

00:04:29.000 Check them out at RockAuto.com, and write Shapiro in their How Did You Hear About Us box.

00:04:33.000 So the big story over the course of yesterday was Mick Mulvaney, President Trump's acting chief of staff, coming out and saying a bevy of things about Ukraine.

00:04:46.000 So let's go through the things that Mick Mulvaney actually said about Ukraine because I think some of them are Some of them are true, and some of them are badly stated, and some of them are being misconstrued, and some of them make real trouble for President Trump.

00:05:00.000 So here's what Mick Mulvaney had to say about Ukraine aid.

00:05:02.000 He was specifically asked whether aid to Ukraine was tied to Ukraine investigating the 2016 election, and here's what Mick Mulvaney had to say.

00:05:11.000 Did he also mention to me in the past that the corruption related to the DNC server?

00:05:16.000 Absolutely.

00:05:17.000 No question about that.

00:05:18.000 But that's it.

00:05:19.000 That's why we held up the money.

00:05:20.000 The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation.

00:05:27.000 And that is absolutely appropriate.

00:05:30.000 Yeah, which ultimately then flowed.

00:05:32.000 So Mulvaney's saying, yes, there was a quid pro quo, we did hold off the military aid in order to pressure the Ukrainians to look into the 2016 election, but we didn't do the quid pro quo about investigation of the Bidens.

00:05:45.000 That's a significant walk back.

00:05:47.000 What you just described is a quid pro quo.

00:05:49.000 It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server Okay, now, people are construing this as he said there was a quid pro quo that is impeachable.

00:06:05.000 Now, as I've said all along, the problem here is quid pro quo.

00:06:08.000 What I've also said all along is that it depends what the quid pro quo is for.

00:06:11.000 So, for example, we know that three Democratic senators actually wrote the administration in Ukraine just last year and said to them, we want to withhold your aid unless you are willing to fully cooperate with the Mueller investigation.

00:06:23.000 So that would be a quid pro quo, would it not?

00:06:25.000 I mean, that is a quid pro quo.

00:06:27.000 In other words, there are strings attached to American aid.

00:06:29.000 The question is whether the strings attached are overtly about getting a political opponent.

00:06:34.000 Remember where this story started, so you can see how the story is now morphing, right?

00:06:37.000 So the story started with the accusation that Donald Trump specifically said to Ukraine, you will not get your aid unless you investigate Joe Biden.

00:06:46.000 Now the media are shifting this into, well it's just as bad if Trump said you won't get your aid unless you investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

00:06:55.000 No, that's not the same thing.

00:06:58.000 The United States and the people of the United States do have a legitimate interest in finding out about foreign interference in the 2016 election.

00:07:05.000 And I'm having a hard time, frankly, understanding how folks on the left don't get this, considering that they just spent two years investigating, with taxpayer dollars, Russian interference in an American election.

00:07:16.000 And that members of the U.S.

00:07:18.000 Congress who are Democrats were threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine if they didn't help with that specific investigation about the 2016 election.

00:07:24.000 So in other words, if you withhold aid to Ukraine because they won't help Democrats investigate Mueller, that's okay.

00:07:29.000 If you won't hand over aid to Ukraine unless they investigate Ukraine's meddling that helped Hillary Clinton, then it's very bad in a quid pro quo.

00:07:38.000 I don't understand how these both can be simultaneously true.

00:07:41.000 That does not make any moral sense at all.

00:07:43.000 Now, that's not really where Mulvaney slipped up.

00:07:45.000 So everybody is jumping on the fact that he was asked specifically about quid pro quo, and then he sort of said, yeah, we do that all the time, to mean that he is saying that there's a quid pro quo American taxpayer money to help President Trump politically.

00:07:57.000 And that's not what he said.

00:07:59.000 And when you're talking about a quid pro quo that matters, you have to be talking about something that you cannot use American taxpayer money to do.

00:08:07.000 The accusation about Joe Biden, for example, is an accusation that Joe Biden used American taxpayer dollars, right?

00:08:13.000 A billion dollars in loan guarantees to Ukraine.

00:08:16.000 in order to benefit himself and his son Hunter Biden personally.

00:08:18.000 That's the accusation President Trump is making.

00:08:20.000 Biden's defense is, no, when I said that there is a quid pro quo, what I meant is that I'm withholding $1 billion in loan guarantees, specifically until Ukraine cleans up its act with regard to corruption.

00:08:31.000 And the Obama administration was pressuring in early 2016 and throughout 2016, in fact, pressuring the Ukrainian government to clean up on corruption.

00:08:38.000 And that involved investigating people like Paul Manafort, who ended up as Trump's campaign chief of staff.

00:08:44.000 So, was that wrong of the Obama administration?

00:08:47.000 Did they violate the law there?

00:08:48.000 Was that a quid pro quo in the sense that everybody is talking about an impeachable offense?

00:08:53.000 The answer is no. 0.99

00:08:54.000 And now Mulvaney phrased all of this in like the stupidest possible way. 0.92

00:08:58.000 And in just one second, I'm going to read you the full context of his comments and explain what I think He was trying to say, but let's be real about this. 0.97

00:09:08.000 He was very awkward in how he said it and he created more nightmares and more headaches for President Trump.

00:09:12.000 The president's legal team today is walking away from Mulvaney saying, listen, we didn't vet that press conference.

00:09:16.000 We have no idea what that guy was saying.

00:09:18.000 Sean Hannity, who of course is a big defender of the president on virtually every topic, he came out and he was ripping into Mulvaney.

00:09:23.000 So.

00:09:24.000 Even Trump's biggest defenders are unhappy with what Mulvaney said.

00:09:29.000 But I'm pretty sure that the headlines are not matching what Mulvaney actually said.

00:09:34.000 The headlines today are all about how Mick Mulvaney basically said, sure, we do quid pro quos all the time.

00:09:40.000 What he was saying is that there are strings attached to American foreign policy aid.

00:09:43.000 That, of course, has always been true. 0.79

00:09:44.000 And he's correct about that.

00:09:45.000 It's just he phrased it in the worst possible way because Maybe he's just not that good at this. 0.99

00:09:50.000 Again, the stupidity more than malice explanation tends to hold true for virtually everything. 0.98

00:09:55.000 People make mistakes, people say dumb things, particularly in the political realm, but we'll explain word for word what he said and then you can make your own judgment. 0.99

00:10:03.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:10:04.000 First, let's talk about Tommy John underwear.

00:10:06.000 So, there is one brand of underwear that is better than any other.

00:10:10.000 Undergarments We're talking about Tommy John.

00:10:13.000 Tommy John's stuff is fantastic.

00:10:15.000 Because it graces my very tuchus this very moment.

00:10:15.000 How do I know?

00:10:18.000 Tommy John doesn't just claim to be the most comfortable underwear on the planet, they actually have the stats to back it up.

00:10:23.000 Like, they have 7 million pairs of Tommy John underwear they've sold, with 96% of their customers rating them 4 stars or greater.

00:10:30.000 With Tommy John's revolutionary underwear, the legs never ride up, the waistbands never roll down.

00:10:34.000 Tommy John is more than just underwear.

00:10:36.000 They've got 750 products online, such as super soft loungewear, polo shirts, and apparel.

00:10:41.000 And dudes, here's something for the ladies in your life. 1.00

00:10:43.000 After two years and countless hours of obsessing over every little detail, Tommy John is proud to introduce the most comfortable bras on the planet.

00:10:50.000 If you prefer to shop in stores, you can find them online in over 1,200 retail locations across the country.

00:10:57.000 Including Nordstrom stores nationwide.

00:10:58.000 Tommy John, no adjustment needed.

00:11:00.000 My wife wears Tommy John as well.

00:11:02.000 Tommy John is just fantastic.

00:11:02.000 She loves it.

00:11:03.000 Hurry over to TommyJohn.com slash Ben right now to get 20% off your first order.

00:11:08.000 That's TommyJohn.com slash Ben for 20% off TommyJohn.com slash Ben.

00:11:12.000 You don't shy away from spending a little extra money on like a nice pair of pants. 0.74

00:11:15.000 Why would you shy away from spending a little money on something that is going to grace your butt every single way?

00:11:19.000 Go check them out over at tommyjohn.com slash ben and get 20% off your first order when you use that address tommyjohn.com slash ben.

00:11:27.000 Okay, so here is what Mick Mulvaney actually had to say word for word.

00:11:30.000 So he was asked, quote, the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that Trump ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine.

00:11:38.000 And Mulvaney said the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation.

00:11:43.000 And that is absolutely appropriate.

00:11:45.000 Okay, again, that's fair.

00:11:47.000 The Obama administration withheld aid to Ukraine unless they were willing to root out corruption by looking into people like Paul Manafort, even though Paul Manafort was working with the Trump campaign at the time.

00:11:58.000 Hillary Clinton was coordinating with the Ukrainian government to receive dirt on President Trump.

00:12:03.000 That was not illegal.

00:12:04.000 It was bad, but it was not illegal.

00:12:06.000 The Democratic senators in the last year wrote a letter to the government of Ukraine saying, help out with the Mueller investigation or your aid is gonna go bye-bye.

00:12:14.000 That's what Mulvaney is saying.

00:12:16.000 So the reporter then said, withholding the funding, and Mulvaney said, yeah, which ultimately then flowed.

00:12:21.000 By the way, there was a report that we were worried that if we didn't pay out the money, it would be illegal, okay?

00:12:26.000 It would be unlawful.

00:12:28.000 So that is the part where Mulvaney is starting to look weird, right?

00:12:33.000 This is where Mulvaney starts blurring the lines and things get very weird.

00:12:37.000 If he were making the claim that we are allowed to withhold funding based on investigation of things that are of importance to the American public, including foreign interference in the 2016 election, Even badly based information about foreign interference in the 2016 election, right?

00:12:50.000 This is my theory, and I think it is the most plausible theory by a long shot, and that is that Rudy Giuliani was being fed bad information by Ukrainian actors.

00:12:57.000 He was feeding that to President Trump.

00:12:59.000 President Trump was putting that into his mind and churning out a one-note card statement on Ukraine, and that's all he really was thinking about in Ukraine.

00:13:07.000 That was corruption, DNC, server, 2016, Maria Yovanovitch, like it all comes out as a ball of bleh from President Trump.

00:13:18.000 And then Mulvaney interprets that as we're fighting corruption by withholding aid.

00:13:22.000 And I think that's really what happened here.

00:13:24.000 It may be bad information.

00:13:26.000 It may be information that is wrong or incorrect.

00:13:28.000 All of that may very well be true.

00:13:30.000 That does not mean that it's a quid pro quo for quote unquote political purposes.

00:13:34.000 When Mulvaney says, if we didn't pay out the money, it would be illegal.

00:13:37.000 It would be unlawful.

00:13:39.000 Based on what?

00:13:40.000 Like that's undercutting your own argument.

00:13:42.000 If his argument is, we could withhold the aid in order to achieve the fighting of corruption, which included investigating, for example, the DNC server.

00:13:49.000 Again, based on bad information.

00:13:51.000 If that is Mulvaney's argument, then what is he talking about?

00:13:54.000 It would be illegal if we didn't allow the money to flow.

00:13:57.000 And then he was asked, what you just described is a quid pro quo.

00:14:00.000 It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

00:14:04.000 And Mulvaney said, we do that all the time with foreign policy.

00:14:06.000 We were holding up money at the same time for the Northern Triangle countries.

00:14:10.000 We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so they would change their policies on immigration.

00:14:13.000 So what he is saying there, right?

00:14:15.000 People are taking the, we do quid pro quos all the time with foreign policy to mean we do political quid pro quos that benefit the president all the time with foreign policy.

00:14:23.000 That is not what he is saying, right?

00:14:24.000 The context is we do stuff That it's quid pro quos with foreign governments based on foreign aid, which of course is exactly true. 0.81

00:14:31.000 And then, they take out of context this other line that Mulvaney says, where he says, and I have news for everybody, get over it, there's going to be political influence in foreign policy.

00:14:39.000 He doesn't mean that, get over it, the Ukrainians are going to influence American foreign policy in the election, or the Russians are going to influence American foreign policy in the election.

00:14:48.000 What he means by that is that we are going to attach strings to foreign policy, and he phrases that in the worst possible way, because everyone is a dope.

00:14:57.000 Here's the important part, right?

00:14:58.000 Remember, this entire debacle began with the accusation that it was about Biden.

00:15:04.000 That the quid pro quo was about Biden.

00:15:05.000 Don't forget that.

00:15:06.000 That's what this whole thing was about.

00:15:07.000 This whole thing, the headlines were Trump ordered Ukraine aid withheld unless Ukraine went and got Biden.

00:15:13.000 That's what the entire headline was.

00:15:15.000 And just like the Mueller investigation morphed from a Trump-Russia 2016 election interference investigation into Trump obstruction of justice.

00:15:22.000 He hates Robert Mueller.

00:15:23.000 Why did he fire the acting FBI director?

00:15:26.000 It morphed really quickly.

00:15:28.000 This one is already morphing.

00:15:29.000 So just notice the moving of the goalposts.

00:15:31.000 It moved from the quid pro quos about Biden to the quid pro quos about corruption in Ukraine.

00:15:35.000 Well, if the quid pro quo is about corruption in Ukraine, that is not an illegal quid pro quo.

00:15:39.000 That's not even really out of the line of kind of normalcy.

00:15:43.000 The only thing that's out of the line of normalcy is that Trump's standard of corruption in Ukraine seems to be based upon bad information fed to him by Rudy Giuliani, who's running around with a bunch of nefarious characters from Ukraine while being paid half a million dollars.

00:15:56.000 Hey, here's the key exchange that people are ignoring, of course.

00:15:59.000 The question from a reporter was, on the call, the president did ask about investigating the Bidens.

00:16:03.000 Are you saying the money that was held up, that had nothing to do with the Bidens?

00:16:06.000 Mulvaney said, no, the money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden.

00:16:09.000 That was the point I was making to you.

00:16:11.000 And then the reporter said, you're drawing the distinction.

00:16:13.000 You're saying it would be wrong to hold up money for the Bidens.

00:16:15.000 Mulvaney said, there were three factors.

00:16:17.000 I was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily, okay?

00:16:20.000 Three issues, the corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in support of Ukraine, And whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice.

00:16:30.000 That's completely legitimate.

00:16:32.000 That is completely legitimate.

00:16:33.000 What he is saying there is not wrong.

00:16:35.000 Right?

00:16:35.000 If there's an ongoing investigation into 2016 election interference by Ukrainian government officials working with Hillary Clinton, for example, that is not wrong to withhold aid until Ukraine helps with that investigation.

00:16:49.000 That's not.

00:16:50.000 Obama did it.

00:16:51.000 These Democratic senators did it. 1.00

00:16:53.000 It is not inappropriate.

00:16:54.000 It is not wrong. 0.83

00:16:56.000 And then the reporter said, you just said you were involved in the process in which the money was held up temporarily.

00:17:00.000 You named three issues.

00:17:01.000 And the corruption in the country, whether or not the country would look, they were assisting with an ongoing investigation of corruption.

00:17:06.000 How is that not an establishment of an exchange of a quid pro quo?

00:17:11.000 And Mulvaney said, those are the terms you used.

00:17:12.000 I mean, go look at what Gordon Sondland said today in his testimony.

00:17:14.000 It was that, I think in his opening statement, he said something along the lines of they were trying to get the deliverable.

00:17:19.000 And the deliverable is a statement by Ukraine about how they were going to deal with corruption, okay?

00:17:22.000 Go read his testimony if you haven't already.

00:17:25.000 And what he says is, and he's right, this is absolutely ordinary course of business.

00:17:29.000 This is what you do when you have someone come to the White House.

00:17:30.000 When you either arrange a visit for the president, you have a phone call with the president, a lot of times we use that as an opportunity to get them to make a statement of their policy or announce something they're going to do.

00:17:39.000 It's one of the reasons we can't, you know, sort of announce that he's on the phone call or at the meeting.

00:17:43.000 This is the ordinary course of foreign policy.

00:17:46.000 So people, again, are taking him, Mulvaney, not shying away from the phrase quid pro quo to ignore what kind of quid pro quo he is talking about.

00:17:55.000 Hey, if I go down to the local grocery store and I hand a person money in exchange for bread, that is a quid pro quo.

00:18:02.000 It's a market transaction.

00:18:04.000 If I walk down to the local slum corner and I hand a man money in exchange for cocaine, that is also a free transaction. 0.98

00:18:12.000 It is not the same kind of transaction, right?

00:18:14.000 Both of those are quid pro quos.

00:18:15.000 One of them is illegal, and one of them is fully within ordinary course of business.

00:18:19.000 Withholding aid in order to achieve certain foreign policy objectives is, in fact, the way that business is done on foreign policy.

00:18:26.000 That is 100% right.

00:18:28.000 But the question is whether this was done in order to get Biden.

00:18:31.000 Again, it's amazing how Biden has sort of slipped away from the conversation.

00:18:33.000 Notice how it's slipped away, slipped away.

00:18:35.000 Okay, well, the White House is reacting to all of this.

00:18:38.000 The DOJ reacting to all, Democrats reacting to all of this.

00:18:40.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:18:42.000 First, let's talk about protecting your online information.

00:18:45.000 ExpressVPN is an app I use to stay secure online.

00:18:48.000 Why should you care about encrypting your data?

00:18:50.000 Well, it's often easy for a hacker to bypass Wi-Fi security and steal your information by exploiting flaws like crack.

00:18:56.000 That would be crack with a K in case you actually want to Google it.

00:18:58.000 It's very easy for people who know what they're doing to grab your data.

00:19:00.000 And once they have your data, they can use it for any purpose they want to use it for.

00:19:03.000 They can steal your credit card information.

00:19:05.000 They can take your data and they can sell it to third-party vendors.

00:19:08.000 It's hard to know whether your device or network is vulnerable.

00:19:10.000 If you ever use Wi-Fi at a hotel or a shopping mall, you're sending data over an open network, meaning no encryption at all.

00:19:16.000 The best way to ensure that all of your data is encrypted and can't be read by hackers is to use ExpressVPN.

00:19:21.000 All you need to do is download the ExpressVPN app on your computer or smartphone, you tap one button to secure 100% of your network data, and then you can use the internet just the way you normally would.

00:19:30.000 ExpressVPN is incredibly reliable.

00:19:31.000 It's the fastest VPN service I've tried.

00:19:33.000 They're also rated the world's number one VPN provider by review sites like TechRadar and CNET.

00:19:38.000 ExpressVPN takes privacy and security to the next level.

00:19:41.000 Go check them out right now.

00:19:42.000 ExpressVPN.com slash ben for three extra months free with a one-year package.

00:19:47.000 There's a reason I trust ExpressVPN.

00:19:48.000 You should too.

00:19:49.000 Protect your internet today with the VPN I trust to keep my data safe.

00:19:51.000 Go to ExpressVPN.com slash ben to get started.

00:19:54.000 Okay, so the Democrats are reacting to this.

00:19:57.000 Adam Schiff, who's already Ready for impeachment.

00:20:00.000 I mean, he didn't need this.

00:20:01.000 He now says that Mulvaney did something super duper duper wrong.

00:20:04.000 wrong.

00:20:05.000 He says, I think Mr. Mulvaney's acknowledgement means that things have gone from very, very bad to much, much worse.

00:20:09.000 Schiff demurred when asked how Mulvaney's comments would affect the pace of the House's impeachment inquiry.

00:20:15.000 So, in other words, Democrats are going to say that things just got worse, even though basically, in reality, what Mulvaney said basically confirmed what the Trump administration was already saying.

00:20:24.000 Schiff said, the idea that And Mulvaney never said that the military aid was being withheld in order to help Trump politically.

00:20:29.000 reason, for the reason of serving the president's re-election campaign, is a phenomenal breach of the president's duty to defend our national security.

00:20:35.000 But Mulvaney never said that.

00:20:37.000 And Mulvaney never said that the military aid was being withheld in order to help Trump politically.

00:20:42.000 That misread of that one line where he says there is political influence in foreign policy, he didn't mean that this was meant to help Trump and boost Trump for 2020.

00:20:52.000 He meant there are strings attached to foreign policy dollars, and it's pretty obvious from the context that that's exactly what he meant.

00:20:58.000 And so Mulvaney is already walking this thing back.

00:21:01.000 So again, people are picking on this one line where he said, I have news for everybody, get over it.

00:21:06.000 There's going to be a political influence in foreign policy that's going to happen.

00:21:09.000 Elections have consequences.

00:21:12.000 Mulvaney denied any aid, again, was withheld to pressure Ukraine into going after Biden.

00:21:17.000 So, Mulvaney is now saying that his remarks were misconstrued, which, by the way, they were.

00:21:21.000 He issued his statement after the president's outside legal counsel tried to distance itself from Mulvaney's earlier comments at a press briefing.

00:21:28.000 Mulvaney now says there is no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and that country's willingness to investigate the 2016 U.S.

00:21:34.000 election. 1.00

00:21:34.000 Now, this is where you get into the stupidity of politics. 1.00

00:21:37.000 Mulvaney should say, Well, yeah, of course. 0.99

00:21:40.000 Yes, we were withholding military aid unless they showed willingness to investigate their own interference in the 2016 election.

00:21:47.000 Because if that's not, like really, if what he's saying now is not true, then it's going to look like he was lying.

00:21:54.000 They're gonna call him to testify now because he was involved in this process and he's gonna have to testify one way or another.

00:21:59.000 And so either he was lying then or he's lying now.

00:22:01.000 He's getting himself in trouble.

00:22:02.000 The truth is that of course military aid was withheld in order to investigate the 2016 election.

00:22:09.000 Trump said so on the call.

00:22:10.000 That stuff was basically said on the call.

00:22:13.000 Not the military aid part, but that he wanted the 2016 election interference investigated.

00:22:19.000 There's nothing wrong with that.

00:22:21.000 Okay, Mulvaney adds that Trump never told him to withhold money until the Ukrainians took action related to a server Democrats used in the 2016 election.

00:22:28.000 In an earlier briefing, Mulvaney had directly cited questions about the DNC server as a reason that money for Ukraine was being held up. 0.99

00:22:34.000 Okay, well, again, the questions about, Trump's bizarre questions about whether the DNC server is being held in Ukraine, which we've talked about on the show yesterday, that is founded in bad logic and bad evidence and Rudy Giuliani being an idiot. 0.97

00:22:50.000 But, Withholding aid because you got bad information is not the same thing as withholding aid for political gain. 0.97

00:22:55.000 It's not quite the same thing.

00:22:57.000 Because, let's say, for the sake of argument, that this weren't a crazy theory, and that the DNC server was in fact being held in Ukraine, and demonstrated, as Trump seems to think, bizarrely, that Russia did not hack into the DNC server, Ukraine did.

00:23:11.000 Wouldn't that be of relevance to the American people?

00:23:13.000 I mean, we just spent two years investigating whether or not the Russians were behind the 2016 election interference.

00:23:19.000 So if it was Ukraine instead, that seems like that would be relevant. 1.00

00:23:21.000 Now, as I say, I think it's an idiotic theory. 0.97

00:23:23.000 I don't think there's any evidence to back it, but if that's what's going on in Trump's head, then that's not necessarily about Trump's political gain. 0.98

00:23:29.000 It's much more about who interfered in the 2016 election.

00:23:32.000 We just spent two years investigating this and pressuring Ukraine to cooperate.

00:23:36.000 A lawyer for Trump is trying to distance the president's legal team from Mulvaney.

00:23:41.000 Trump's personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, issued a one-sentence statement that said the president's legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney's press briefing.

00:23:49.000 Now, again, that ain't gonna fly.

00:23:52.000 It's not gonna fly.

00:23:53.000 I'm sorry.

00:23:54.000 Mulvaney has a defense here, and his defense is exactly what I'm saying, because I'm pretty sure that's what he was saying.

00:24:00.000 And Trump's legal team running away from him, and now saying, well, you know, he didn't clear his stuff with us.

00:24:04.000 It makes it sound like what Mulvaney actually admitted to was the crime.

00:24:08.000 Like what Mulvaney admitted to was the impeachable offense, which means they call him on the carpet, they ask him about what he said, and then they impeach on that basis.

00:24:15.000 So, the reaction to Mulvaney for Trump is actually as bad or worse than what Mulvaney actually said in terms of the impeachment process.

00:24:24.000 And you can listen to the media coverage, which is really not honest.

00:24:28.000 Toulouse Olorunnipa of the Washington Post says, Mulvaney's retort to the charges that Trump abused his office for personal political gain came in a three-word mantra that now forms the central theme of the White House impeachment response.

00:24:42.000 Get over it.

00:24:43.000 Mulvaney had embraced a classic Trumpian tactic, saying the quiet and potentially illegal part out loud.

00:24:49.000 That strategy with regard to Ukraine came in for withering criticism after Mulvaney's appearance.

00:24:53.000 He later tried to walk back his comments.

00:24:54.000 In a statement late Thursday, Mulvaney denied the quid pro quo he had previously defended as appropriate and normal.

00:25:00.000 Well, no.

00:25:01.000 He said in the press conference the quid pro quo wasn't about Biden.

00:25:05.000 The only thing that he reversed himself on was the DNC server part, and I'm not sure why he reversed himself on it, considering that it's obviously true.

00:25:11.000 That it's obviously true that Trump said, we want to withhold military aid and or a presidential meeting until the Ukrainians get to the bottom of corruption, which includes an investigation into this DNC server in 2016 election interference question.

00:25:23.000 Again, for the thousandth time, based on bad information, but not based on necessarily 2020 election prospects or political malice.

00:25:34.000 So, this is how it's being painted now.

00:25:37.000 Honestly, that wasn't even the worst part of this press conference.

00:25:39.000 The worst part of the press conference, as we will see, is Mulvaney's comments about President Trump directing the G7 to be held at the Trump Doral Resort.

00:25:52.000 Like, why is that even happening?

00:25:53.000 Like, why?

00:25:54.000 Why?

00:25:55.000 Okay, we'll get to that in just one second.

00:25:57.000 First, last week, China devalued its currency and the markets tanked.

00:26:00.000 One consequence was that Bitcoin prices rose.

00:26:03.000 In times of chaos and uncertainty, people tend to look for alternative methods of investment that are not subject to the whims of central governments messing around with the currency.

00:26:11.000 Instead, people are investing in Bitcoin the same way they would invest in precious metals.

00:26:14.000 Because Bitcoin, effectively speaking, is a product that is created with blockchain that creates a scarcity that cannot be hacked by central government and manipulated by central governments.

00:26:25.000 Well, if you're considering getting into the crypto market, you should use eToro.

00:26:29.000 eToro is smart crypto trading made easy.

00:26:32.000 eToro's social trading platform has over 11 million traders and facilitates over $1 trillion in trading volume per year globally.

00:26:38.000 You can access the world's best cryptocurrencies.

00:26:40.000 They have 15 different coins available.

00:26:42.000 They've got low and transparent fees.

00:26:43.000 You can try before you trade with a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget.

00:26:47.000 Never miss a trading trend with charts and pricing alerts.

00:26:49.000 They make it super easy.

00:26:51.000 Sign up today at etoro.com slash Shapiro.

00:26:53.000 That's etoro.com slash Shapiro.

00:26:56.000 I love that you can really try it out before you even put your own money in so you can see how the system works.

00:27:00.000 Go check them out at etoro.com slash Shapiro.

00:27:03.000 E-T-O-R-O dot com slash Shapiro. 0.69

00:27:07.000 Okay, so the worst moment of this presser was not even the whole quid pro quo thing.

00:27:13.000 The worst moment of the presser had to do with the fact that the Trump administration awarded next year's G7, the Summit of World Leaders, to his own resort, to President Trump's resort.

00:27:24.000 Now, I am so annoyed by this, I cannot even tell you.

00:27:28.000 Annoyed, irritated.

00:27:30.000 Even if you think that it's not corrupt, it is the absolute appearance of corruption.

00:27:34.000 It's the absolute appearance of corruption.

00:27:37.000 Trump's people are claiming that it's not an emoluments violation.

00:27:40.000 Emoluments are basically bribery.

00:27:42.000 It's not the president enriching himself.

00:27:44.000 They say, well, he won't make any profit off of this.

00:27:46.000 It's just he really, really, really likes the resort.

00:27:48.000 This is where Trump's people do him a deep disservice.

00:27:51.000 And Trump does himself a deep disservice.

00:27:53.000 His people should be saying to him, Mr. President, you've made a whole thing out of Joe Biden appearing to be corrupt with Hunter, and now you are directing the G7 to be held at your own resort that you own?

00:28:04.000 That costs millions and millions of dollars, that event?

00:28:07.000 You're directing it to your own resort?

00:28:08.000 Don't you think that creates the appearance of impropriety?

00:28:11.000 Why do you think this is smart?

00:28:13.000 Now, Trump, because he has never met—I mean, Trump is like my three-year-old when it comes to reverse psychology.

00:28:20.000 Like, if you want Trump to do something, you tell him you don't want to do it.

00:28:23.000 So maybe the best thing that should have happened here is that all of his aides should have said, best idea you ever had, Mr. President.

00:28:27.000 You should totally ignore the implications of corruption.

00:28:30.000 You should totally hold it at door-all.

00:28:31.000 And then Trump would be like, I don't want to do it anymore.

00:28:33.000 But the fact is that Everybody around Trump, unfortunately, is afraid of Trump, and nobody apparently had the balls to just say to him straight out, Mr. President, it looks really bad when you're directing giant events to your own resort in the middle of the presidency.

00:28:47.000 It looks as though you're exerting the pressure of the presidency in order to raise money for your own businesses.

00:28:53.000 I mean, it does.

00:28:54.000 It looks bad.

00:28:54.000 There's no other way to put it.

00:28:55.000 It looks bad.

00:28:56.000 It looks corrupt.

00:28:56.000 It looks bad.

00:28:57.000 Now, is it corrupt or bad?

00:28:59.000 Well, you'd have to show that the money flows.

00:29:00.000 You'd have to show that Trump made some sort of profit from it. 1.00

00:29:04.000 But, again, the president's desire to show off his own properties and his desire to talk about how wonderful his own properties are, it is not good for him, it is not good for his administration, it is stupid, and it is wrong. 0.95

00:29:16.000 So, according to the Washington Post, Trump has awarded the 2020 Group of Seven Summit of World Leaders to his private company, scheduling the summit for June at his Trump National Doral Miami Golf Resort in Florida, the White House announced on Thursday. 0.92

00:29:28.000 Trump's doral resort has been in sharp decline in recent years.

00:29:31.000 Its net operating income fell 69% from 2015 to 2017.

00:29:35.000 A Trump Organization representative testified last year the reason was Trump's damaged brand.

00:29:39.000 Now, the G7 summit will draw hundreds of diplomats, journalists, and security personnel to the resort during one of its slowest months of the year when Miami is hot and the hotel is often less than 40% full.

00:29:49.000 It will also provide a worldwide spotlight for the club.

00:29:52.000 Apparently Trump passed his AIDS earlier this year.

00:29:55.000 What about Doral?

00:29:56.000 Mulvaney said a nationwide search conducted by Trump's administration led to the conclusion that the president was right.

00:30:01.000 Doral was far and away the best physical facility for the meeting.

00:30:05.000 Is what Mulvaney said.

00:30:06.000 Weird!

00:30:07.000 Weird that the best physical facility in the United States, anywhere in the United States for the meeting, happens to be owned by the president of the United States.

00:30:14.000 Okay, I'm sorry.

00:30:15.000 This is absurd.

00:30:15.000 It's absurd.

00:30:16.000 And it's just, again, it's everybody around Trump trying to stroke his ego because they feel like if they stroke his ego, maybe he'll give them some of their policy priorities.

00:30:23.000 And it's a huge mistake.

00:30:24.000 Somebody should have just said to him, no.

00:30:26.000 Somebody should have said to him, no.

00:30:28.000 But nobody will say to him, no.

00:30:29.000 And it damages him.

00:30:31.000 Like, if you're rooting for Trump to be reelected, this kind of stuff is very, very bad for him.

00:30:34.000 And somebody needs to say no to him.

00:30:36.000 It's just, it's absurd.

00:30:38.000 Mulvaney didn't say what the other sites were, just that they were all worse.

00:30:41.000 Just, this was the best.

00:30:42.000 It was the most unbelievable.

00:30:45.000 Okay, Trump said in 2016, I will be leaving my great business in total, of course, after he was elected.

00:30:50.000 And yet, we have seen that it is not true, that he is not directing business to his own businesses.

00:30:56.000 Now, maybe he doesn't make money from that, but this is like...

00:31:01.000 It's absurd.

00:31:01.000 I'm sorry.

00:31:02.000 It's just absurd on a political level.

00:31:05.000 On a moral level, it's absurd.

00:31:06.000 There's just no rationale for it.

00:31:07.000 Mulvaney was asked about this.

00:31:08.000 Here's what Mulvaney had to say.

00:31:10.000 He's not making any money off of this, just like he's not making money from working here.

00:31:14.000 And if you think it's going to help his brand, that's great.

00:31:17.000 But I would suggest that he probably doesn't need much help promoting his brand.

00:31:20.000 So we'll put the profit one aside and deal with a perfect place.

00:31:22.000 I mean, who was here for the last time?

00:31:24.000 Was it Camp David?

00:31:25.000 Was that the perfect place?

00:31:27.000 In fact, I understand the folks who participated in it hated it and thought it was a miserable place to have the G7.

00:31:32.000 It was way too small.

00:31:33.000 It was way too remote.

00:31:34.000 My understanding is the media didn't like it because you had to drive an hour and a bus to get there either way.

00:31:38.000 Okay, so Camp David was bad, but apparently, like, last I checked, it turns out that there are, like, lots of hotels and resorts in the United States.

00:31:45.000 Lots of them.

00:31:46.000 I've been to summits and meetings with very high-level people at resorts that are not, in fact, a drill and that are quite nice.

00:31:52.000 Mulvaney admitted he was skeptical of the plan at first, but he called Doral the perfect physical location.

00:31:56.000 The perfect physical location.

00:31:58.000 Perfect.

00:31:58.000 Miami in the middle of July.

00:32:00.000 Perfect.

00:32:01.000 And dismissed criticisms by saying Trump is the most recognizable name in the English language and probably around the world right now, so he doesn't need help with marketing.

00:32:08.000 He said, there's no profit here.

00:32:09.000 Clearly there is profit with the Bidens.

00:32:11.000 If you look at the difference between the Trump family and the Biden family, the Trump family made their money before they went into politics.

00:32:16.000 Oh my God!

00:32:17.000 If you're making the comparison between Trump and Biden, and your entire criticism of Biden is that he appeared to be using the power of his office to benefit his son, and this is an appearances question, So that was really grand for Mick Mulvaney.

00:32:37.000 We'll get to more of this in just one second.

00:32:40.000 We'll also get to the 2020 Democratic race and What I think was actually a really important speech by Mark Zuckerberg over at Facebook yesterday.

00:32:47.000 But first, you need to go over to dailywire.com.

00:32:49.000 Folks, the Daily Wire's long-awaited app is finally here, and it truly is phenomenal.

00:32:54.000 First rate, if you're a subscriber, you can access all of our content, including articles, shows, and more, straight from the app.

00:32:59.000 All Access subscribers get our new and exclusive discussion features where they can interact directly with hosts, writers, and other special guests.

00:33:05.000 The app is available on Apple and Android.

00:33:07.000 Download today, become a subscriber, and come join the fun.

00:33:09.000 A little bit later on in the show, we have two additional hours of the show every day.

00:33:13.000 You can access all three hours of the show when you subscribe.

00:33:15.000 So if you love the show but you want more of it, well, good news for you.

00:33:17.000 You can now watch all three hours of the show and you can be part of the mailbag.

00:33:21.000 We're probably not gonna have time for the mailbag on the podcast today, but we'll do it later on the radio show.

00:33:24.000 So if you're a subscriber, you get those questions answered, go check us out over at dailywire.com.

00:33:28.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:33:32.000 Okay, so a little bit more on this Ukraine stuff, and then we will move on to what I think was actually a pretty important moment over at Georgetown yesterday, because people—we'll get into that in just one second— But first, there's one final story that we have to take note of with regard to all of the Ukraine Impeachment Day 2019 talk.

00:33:56.000 And that is Gordon Sondland, who is the Trump EU ambassador.

00:33:58.000 He told House investigators that he opposed the president's request to run Ukraine policy through Rudy Giuliani again for the 1,000th time.

00:34:05.000 This is all going to come down to Rudy Giuliani, not Mick Mulvaney.

00:34:08.000 It's going to come down to Rudy Giuliani and whether Rudy Giuliani was in fact just giving the president bad information or whether he and Trump were scheming to go get Democrats.

00:34:16.000 Whether they were like Elmer Fudd on a wabbit hunt or whether they were just Meanwhile, there was a big speech that was done by Mark Zuckerberg yesterday at Georgetown.

00:34:24.000 Now, quick preface here.

00:34:25.000 2016 election was affected by foreign interference.

00:34:28.000 Okay.

00:34:29.000 Meanwhile, there was a big speech that was done by Mark Zuckerberg yesterday at Georgetown.

00:34:35.000 Now, quick preface here.

00:34:36.000 There's a story that came out a little bit earlier this week in Politico, and the story suggested that I have met with Mark Zuckerberg.

00:34:43.000 Now, let me say clearly and for the record, I will never tell the media who I meet with.

00:34:48.000 Ever.

00:34:48.000 I'm not going to tell them who I meet with.

00:34:50.000 I'm not going to tell them what we say.

00:34:51.000 The reason is because, you know, in my job, in what I do, I talk with a wide variety of extraordinarily powerful people that the left would not want me talking with.

00:34:59.000 The left spends an enormous amount of time trying to shut down precisely those conversations by reporting that the conversations happen and then bringing outside pressure to bear to stop people from having those discussions in the first place.

00:35:10.000 I talk with lots of people they don't want me talking with because I think the conversation is important.

00:35:14.000 I think that persuasion is important.

00:35:16.000 I think it's important to talk with people you disagree with.

00:35:18.000 And so my answer to people who are asking me about meeting with Mark Zuckerberg or anybody else for that matter in a position of power is take a hike, son.

00:35:28.000 Because guess what?

00:35:29.000 I meet with lots of people.

00:35:30.000 It's none of your business.

00:35:32.000 And it's particularly none of your business because the goal of so many people on the left is to stop exactly the sorts of conversation that make the country better.

00:35:38.000 Those conversations make the country better.

00:35:39.000 The goal of the left is to prevent those conversations, which in fact is the entire issue that is happening right now with regard to Facebook.

00:35:45.000 So listen, I understand conservative skepticism about Facebook. 0.98

00:35:48.000 Okay, I've criticized Facebook copiously in the past when Facebook has taken action to kick people I don't even like Off of Facebook, but I think that Facebook has been too stringent in their interpretation of their own quote-unquote hate speech policy, which I think, by the way, is a stupid policy. 0.97

00:35:48.000 I really do. 0.97

00:36:02.000 I think that the Facebook hate speech policy is idiotic because there is no actual definition of hate speech. 0.95

00:36:07.000 But let's be clear, the real pressure that is being brought to bear right now on Facebook is being brought by the left. 0.96

00:36:13.000 And the reason the left is trying to bring pressure on Facebook is because Donald Trump won in 2016.

00:36:16.000 It is that simple.

00:36:17.000 The left doesn't like that Trump won.

00:36:19.000 The left doesn't like that you have an alternative method of getting your news because Facebook allows the free flow of information, more or less.

00:36:26.000 Now, the more or less is a serious question.

00:36:28.000 And a question we have to deal with.

00:36:29.000 But the fact is, I over at Daily Wire can't exactly complain about Facebook's dissemination of news, considering that we get an enormous amount of traffic via Facebook.

00:36:37.000 And so do a number of other conservative publishers.

00:36:40.000 If it were not for social media sites like Facebook, if it were not for social media sites like Instagram, if it were not for social media sites like YouTube, it would be very difficult for you to get information.

00:36:50.000 The social media sites have been very useful in ending around the media, which by the way is why the media are so all fired pissed off at Facebook.

00:36:56.000 It's why the Democrats are so all fired pissed off at Facebook.

00:36:59.000 It's why you're seeing Elizabeth Warren threatening to break up Facebook and other big tech companies. 1.00

00:37:04.000 Not because they're worried about monopoly of information, but because they want to restore the monopoly of information.

00:37:09.000 Understand that social media platforms, I may disagree with their rules.

00:37:12.000 I may disagree about the implementation of the rules.

00:37:14.000 I may be quite skeptical of the people who are in charge of actually making those rules apply.

00:37:20.000 But, if I have a choice between a world where social media allows me to get information from a variety of sources across the political spectrum, and a world where the only newspapers I can buy at the newsstand are the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post, that is not a choice.

00:37:34.000 For the journalists, it's not a choice either, which is why they hate the big tech, they hate the social media platforms.

00:37:40.000 And you're starting to see all of these journalists, journalism-ing all over the place.

00:37:44.000 What they would prefer is an area of limited information.

00:37:48.000 They would prefer limited information.

00:37:50.000 And that's why you see the New York Times today running a piece from Matt Stoller called Tech Companies Are Destroying Democracy and Freedom of the Press.

00:38:01.000 Destroying it, as opposed to the New York Times, which just spread its own brand of news without any challengers in the space because there was no alternative means of distribution.

00:38:09.000 Right, so the New York Times is running full pieces now by these folks.

00:38:12.000 You have people like Kara Swisher, who is extremely censorious by nature, who is calling for her to be one of the controllers of Facebook's new sort of judiciary board that would help rule on whether things have violated policy. 1.00

00:38:24.000 She would like to do that because Swisher happens to be censorious.

00:38:28.000 Folks on the left want control of the means of the distribution of information.

00:38:32.000 In any case, Mark Zuckerberg gave a speech at Georgetown, and it actually was quite an important speech, because he is actually kicking back against, in my opinion, the left.

00:38:40.000 He's actually kicking back against a lot of censorious people on the left.

00:38:43.000 Now, Do I trust Zuckerberg and Facebook to make all the right decisions about this stuff?

00:38:47.000 No, which is why I think that we ought to cast a very hardened eye at exactly what Facebook and the social media platforms do in the interpretation of their vague and ridiculous hate speech policies.

00:38:59.000 But, at least Zuckerberg seems to understand some of the problems.

00:39:02.000 So he gives this speech at Georgetown, the media go nuts, it's terrible, we need to break up Facebook.

00:39:07.000 Why would you trust anything the New York Times or the Washington Post are telling you?

00:39:10.000 If they tell you, When it comes to what's good for freedom of speech, is that Facebook be shut down?

00:39:14.000 Why would you trust the people who want a restoration of the monopoly of informational flow?

00:39:19.000 Why would you trust them?

00:39:20.000 Like, I'm seeing conservatives who are like, yeah, Washington, Fost, and New York Times are right.

00:39:23.000 In no other context would you say this.

00:39:25.000 None.

00:39:26.000 But suddenly you're saying this because there's some people on the right who make a good living ripping on big tech without actually understanding all the issues.

00:39:34.000 In any case, Zuckerberg Zuckerberg, honestly, I thought his speech was pretty solid yesterday over at Georgetown.

00:39:43.000 Here's what he had to say about the value of free speech.

00:39:46.000 Our commitment to each other, that we hold each other's right to express ourselves and be heard above our own desire to always get our way in every debate, that's how we make progress together.

00:40:00.000 But this view is increasingly being challenged.

00:40:03.000 Now, some people believe that giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing people together.

00:40:10.000 More people across the spectrum believe that achieving the political outcomes that they think matter is more important than every person having a voice and being heard.

00:40:22.000 I think that that's dangerous.

00:40:24.000 This is 100% right.

00:40:25.000 Okay, at least on this point, Zuckerberg seems to get it, right?

00:40:29.000 He is saying that there are people on the left who want to shut down — he doesn't say the left, obviously, he's not going to get partisan with this — but, read, it's the left, okay?

00:40:36.000 There are people on the left who want to shut down certain voices, and he even gets that they're doing it by broadening the mandate of violence, by suggesting that speech is violence.

00:40:46.000 Zuckerberg said in the middle of his speech, he said, people no longer have to rely on traditional gatekeepers in politics or media to make their voices heard, and that has important consequences.

00:40:53.000 I understand the concerns about how tech platforms have centralized power, but I actually believe the much bigger story is how much these platforms have decentralized power by putting it directly into people's hands.

00:41:02.000 You can't argue with the reality of that.

00:41:03.000 That is 100% true.

00:41:04.000 Before, the barrier to entry in the media marketplace was spending $100 million on the New York Times.

00:41:10.000 Now, the barrier to entry is setting up a Facebook page.

00:41:12.000 That's a pretty major, major difference.

00:41:15.000 And he talks about the trend toward pulling back on free expression.

00:41:19.000 He says, we want the progress that comes from free expression, but not the tension.

00:41:22.000 Okay, that is exactly right.

00:41:28.000 He says it's hard to get the area of hate speech right.

00:41:30.000 I think it's not as hard to get the area of hate speech right.

00:41:32.000 I just think that the general notion of hate speech ought to go away if you are involved in inciting violence.

00:41:38.000 If I were controlling policy at Facebook, I would be recommending a fulsome First Amendment standard, which means unless you are actually inciting violence, unless you are actually engaging in violation of law, I would not ban you from Facebook.

00:41:50.000 I would not denigrate you on Facebook.

00:41:52.000 But he's the one with the private company, and they're not, in fact, a government outlet.

00:41:56.000 With that said, He is correct in his basic understanding of the issue.

00:42:04.000 So for example, unlike the NBA, unlike a lot of people on the corporate left, he has refused to do business with China.

00:42:13.000 He said he wanted to have service with China, but his principles with regard to what Facebook should be did not jibe with what China was doing.

00:42:20.000 So that's very different from what Google has been doing.

00:42:21.000 Google's just going over there and willy-nilly making deals and changing search results for the Chinese.

00:42:25.000 Zuckerberg didn't do that.

00:42:26.000 So at least give him credit where credit is due.

00:42:28.000 I wanted our services in China because I believe in connecting the whole world, and I thought, you know, maybe we could help create a more open society.

00:42:34.000 And this is something that I worked hard on for a long time, but we could never come to agreement on what it would take for us to operate there, and they never let us in.

00:42:44.000 And now, we have more freedom to speak out and stand up for the values that we believe in and fight for free expression around the world.

00:42:52.000 Okay, he's getting this right.

00:42:55.000 If you're on the right and you're ripping into his speech today, it's because you didn't listen to his speech.

00:42:58.000 Here's Zuckerberg clip four.

00:43:00.000 This clip, he talks about what he thinks his responsibility is.

00:43:03.000 Now again, How he actually carries out that responsibility is something that we should all have our eye on.

00:43:08.000 We should.

00:43:09.000 Like, everyone should be very skeptical of people in positions of power carrying out their responsibilities properly.

00:43:14.000 But Zuckerberg at least seems to pay lip service to what he understands the responsibility to be right here.

00:43:19.000 I mean, listen, what he's saying here is no different than what I would say.

00:43:23.000 It is not.

00:43:23.000 Okay, here is, no.

00:43:24.000 How he carries it out may be very different.

00:43:26.000 And that remains a question that we should all keep our eye on, as I keep saying here.

00:43:30.000 Here's Zuckerberg clip four.

00:43:31.000 I believe that we have two responsibilities.

00:43:34.000 To remove content when it can cause real danger as effectively as we can, and to fight to uphold as wide of a definition of freedom of expression as possible, and to not allow the definition of what is considered dangerous to expand beyond what is absolutely necessary.

00:43:53.000 And that's what I'm committed to.

00:43:54.000 Okay, good, good.

00:43:55.000 I mean, okay, so now, hold him to his word.

00:43:58.000 Now hold him to his word.

00:43:59.000 The reason the media are so all fired pissed with Mark Zuckerberg and with Facebook is because he is saying stuff like this.

00:44:05.000 Because Zuckerberg actually, Zuckerberg, like a lot of these big tech platforms, unlike Google, which apparently just wants to make money in China, Zuckerberg is actually paying lip service, again, we'll see how it carries out in practice, he's paying lip service to First Amendment values right there.

00:44:21.000 He is.

00:44:22.000 And if the right has any brains at all, they should be cheering what Zuckerberg said yesterday about limiting the left's attempt to conflate speech with violence and broaden the definition of violence to encompass anything they disagree with.

00:44:33.000 Because Zuckerberg was pushing back against that yesterday.

00:44:35.000 And who do you want?

00:44:36.000 Do you really want... Listen, I may not trust Mark Zuckerberg to set the standards, Frankly, I'm not sure that Zuckerberg, from his own speech, trusts Mark Zuckerberg to set the standards.

00:44:44.000 I don't think anybody should be trusted to set the standards, per se.

00:44:46.000 But, who do you trust more?

00:44:48.000 Private industry, which is at least responsive to the public?

00:44:51.000 Or the government, which does not give a damn and is controlled by open political partisans?

00:44:55.000 Because those are your two choices.

00:44:57.000 Okay, time for a quick thing I like and then a quick thing that I hate.

00:45:00.000 So, things that I like.

00:45:02.000 South Park, they are the most brilliant satirists out there.

00:45:04.000 They remain the most brilliant satirists out there.

00:45:06.000 And they did a bit mocking LeBron James.

00:45:10.000 And it is pretty spectacular.

00:45:12.000 Like, by the way, Quick note, the same media that feel uncomfortable, like sort of uncomfortable, criticizing LeBron James over completely kowtowing to China have no problem talking about breaking up big tech and breaking up Zuckerberg's company because Zuckerberg won't do business in China.

00:45:26.000 Like, it's kind of crazy.

00:45:27.000 Here is South Park going after LeBron.

00:45:29.000 We have a right to free speech.

00:45:32.000 Yes, we do all have freedom of speech.

00:45:33.000 But at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you're not thinking about others and you're only thinking about yourself!

00:45:39.000 Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on, kids?

00:45:40.000 The protesters are trying to kill Ack again, Mr. Mackey.

00:45:43.000 Okay, kids, we don't want another incident here, okay?

00:45:46.000 They're trying to change people's lunch.

00:45:47.000 They don't realize it harms people financially, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

00:45:52.000 And that is Cartman directly quoting LeBron James.

00:45:59.000 Yes, we are still allowed, thank God, at least for the time being, to make fun of people in positions of public power.

00:46:07.000 Okay, time for a very quick thing that I hate.

00:46:13.000 Okay, this is just spectacular.

00:46:15.000 I'm not sure whether I love it or whether I hate it.

00:46:17.000 It is spectacular.

00:46:18.000 So there's a BuzzFeed reporter, her name is Catherine Miller, and she was tweeting out about the 2020 Democratic presidential debate.

00:46:25.000 And she tweeted out, quote, And so that is what Miller tweeted.

00:46:40.000 And by the way, she's right.

00:46:41.000 It was hilarious.

00:46:43.000 Kamala Harris was so desperate for attention. 1.00

00:46:45.000 I mean, that entire debate was just like, love me!

00:46:48.000 Why won't you pay attention to me?

00:46:51.000 Twitter!

00:46:52.000 I think that she thought that her best hit on Elizabeth Warren was not, you called yourself a Native American for 30 years on official forums.

00:47:01.000 Her best attack instead was, why won't you ban Trump from Twitter, man?

00:47:05.000 Kamala Harris is very bad.

00:47:06.000 So Kamala Harris' campaign spokesperson, Harris aide anyway, Harris aide then sends this insane, insane note to Katharine Miller, quote, Hey, I've talked to her directly a few times when she's tweeted out, she sent this to, apparently, Ben Smith, I guess, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed.

00:47:25.000 Hey, I've talked to her directly a few times when she's tweeted out stuff like this.

00:47:28.000 And I told her I was glad she deleted this tweet.

00:47:30.000 She deleted the tweet.

00:47:32.000 There's nothing inappropriate about the tweet.

00:47:33.000 But this kind of stuff is just really a horrible look for you guys.

00:47:36.000 Frankly, it's whiteness manifest. 0.97

00:47:40.000 Whiteness manifest. 0.67

00:47:41.000 What in that tweet has anything to do with race? 0.99

00:47:45.000 It just says that Harris is a crazy person who stands outside the supermarket with a Greenpeace clipboard. 0.96

00:47:49.000 That's 100% correct. 0.98

00:47:50.000 And it has nothing to do with race.

00:47:52.000 I know, Greenpeace activists, they come in all races and sizes and sexual orientations.

00:47:57.000 At least they appear to.

00:47:58.000 So, like, what?

00:48:01.000 If Kamala Harris' people are running to, that's racism! 1.00

00:48:05.000 To call her a Greenpeace activist?

00:48:06.000 Pretty weird.

00:48:07.000 Because if Kamala shrugged off a Warren critique of how she wasn't with her on Facebook, we'd get raked and she would get lauded as taking on corporate power. 1.00

00:48:14.000 The blithe mockery here of Kamala while lauding Warren's style is just not up to par.

00:48:18.000 I say this to you to be super frank and because I really like your guys' work, the platform, and your reporters.

00:48:22.000 We work well together across the board, but this is a bit problematic.

00:48:25.000 There's that word again.

00:48:26.000 Problematic.

00:48:27.000 So problematic.

00:48:28.000 Okay, you can't name what's wrong with it, but it's problematic.

00:48:31.000 Also, I love the tacit admission right there, that we work well together across the board, guys.

00:48:35.000 And if you just have your people delete their tweets, we can continue to work really well together and be bestest of friends.

00:48:40.000 That's not corrupt in any way, shape, or form.

00:48:42.000 Well done, Kamala Harris's team.

00:48:45.000 Trying too hard.

00:48:46.000 Trying too hard.

00:48:48.000 And by the way, points to Ben Smith.

00:48:49.000 He responded, quote, Do you seriously not have real problems?

00:48:52.000 This text makes you think you are totally, totally unready for an actual presidential campaign.

00:48:56.000 No, it's that rare point.

00:49:02.000 It's that rare time of the day when I am praising Ben Smith.

00:49:04.000 Ben, right on the money, man.

00:49:06.000 Yes, correct.

00:49:08.000 More of this, more of this please.

00:49:10.000 Love that.

00:49:11.000 Just spectacular, spectacular stuff.

00:49:14.000 Amazing.

00:49:15.000 Okay, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.

00:49:17.000 There was so much we weren't able to get to on the show because it was an action-packed day.

00:49:21.000 But if you want more, including the mailbag, head on over to dailywire.com and subscribe and we'll see you there later.

00:49:25.000 I'm Ben Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:49:31.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.

00:49:34.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

00:49:35.000 Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.

00:49:37.000 Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.

00:49:39.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.

00:49:41.000 And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.

00:49:44.000 Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.

00:49:46.000 Edited by Adam Sajevitz.

00:49:48.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

00:49:49.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

00:49:51.000 Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.

00:49:53.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

00:49:55.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:49:57.000 On The Matt Waltz Show, we're not just discussing politics.

00:50:00.000 We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

The Ben Shapiro Show - October 18, 2019

Quid Pro Quo? | Ep. 880

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript